Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46804)	5/7/2002 4:09:27 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Logically, they would be the same lie, were they lies. They aren't, though. The COULD be mistakes. But they aren't that, either, I suspect. Here are my choices: I can believe you, who are on record as determined to harass Poet and upset her until you get your way (which involves a situation for which you have often publicly blamed her.) or I can believe Poet. I believe Poet, and not you, about whether you talked about her apply-liberally/twee accn't for these reasons: It is entirely credible that since you and she were emailing and PMing friends at the time of the twee account, you chatted about that. It is entirely credible that getting her suspended was merely another of your ongoing harassments. It is not remotely credible that any of the other four people who knew of the account turned her in. None, for example, are on record as harassers/threateners of her, as you are. As I have said, the evidence that you reported Poet is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is not called "lies." It is called "circumstantial evidence." In this case, it is called strong, persuasive circumstantial evidence with no other suspects. IMO.